Epstein, Maxwell et al: exposed in child sex trafficking

Do we have a Jefferey Epstein thread?

Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges

Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite and heiress who became a confidante of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein and was later implicated in his alleged sexual crimes, has been arrested by the FBI. She was arrested in Bradford, New Hampshire, around 8:30 a.m. Thursday on charges she conspired...

www.nbcnewyork.com

 

[GrandmaBear]

Article dated today:

Beatrice will not be forced to give evidence in Andrew case

PRINCESS BEATRICE has been spared from being dragged into Prince Andrew's sexual abuse case.

www.express.co.uk

 

[GrandmaBear]

Does anyone know Olney's age? I googled for it and that's where I came up with the above article but it didn't show his age.

What I'm wondering is, in looking at his Linked In, what was he doing prior to 2002? How did he come to be hired for Prince Andrew? No experience? Was he just 18 or was he older and where was he working prior? Curious is all.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The term dates back to the 1500's apparently. After the American War of Independence it was changed in the US to "turn state's evidence". I agree it would be ironic and historic though, if it happened.

That's quite interesting. Of course I've heard the term "turn state's evidence" here. I've never heard the term "turn queen's evidence" until today and I sure didn't know we also had that until independence changed it to "state's evidence". Thanks for the info!

 

[Tresir]

If Maxwell turned on Andrew then she'd be admitting of her wrongdoings. While I don't see that happening it would give this case a new twist.

That's the whole thing about turning State's/Queen's evidence, any of one's own wrongdoings are usually expunged. They could give her a minimum sentence which I think was 1 year on most of the counts and 5 on the main one ie 9 years with time off could be 3 years. She has done nearly two years anyway. Think about the deal Epstein got where he did work in the community for the last year. He clearly gave them info for such a lenient sentence. With Maxwell I think the defence are going the mistrial/retrial route first.

 

[Tresir]

Does anyone know Olney's age? I googled for it and that's where I came up with the above article but it didn't show his age.

What I'm wondering is, in looking at his Linked In, what was he doing prior to 2002? How did he come to be hired for Prince Andrew? No experience? Was he just 18 or was he older and where was he working prior? Curious is all.

I would imagine he had a military, police or intelligence career beforehand. Often they are police firearms officers. I noticed one of his later jobs was a Commander and instructor at Sandhurst which is a top UK military establishment.

If Olney was in the books and worked for Andrew, I don't see what difference it makes when or how that means he is not worthwhile or knows something? They clearly want to talk to him for a reason.

When he worked for him doesn't mean he doesn't know things nor does it mean they weren't friendly, saw each other, stayed in touch, etc. does it or did I miss something? It says it is about his relationship with Epstein for one... I may have not a full understanding or missed something as I have not read back or into it more.

If I were them, I'd certainly question anyone who possibly had info and on top of it, they probably have info from their client of who knew things, who likely knew things and who to question. Jmo.

This is Guiffre lawyers asking about this. What she is claiming happened in 2001 isn't it? When she was still under 18. Her eighteenth birthday was August 2001, I believe and she married in 2002.

 

[kdg411]

That's the whole thing about turning State's/Queen's evidence, any of one's own wrongdoings are usually expunged. They could give her a minimum sentence which I think was 1 year on most of the counts and 5 on the main one ie 9 years with time off could be 3 years. She has done nearly two years anyway. Think about the deal Epstein got where he did work in the community for the last year. He clearly gave them info for such a lenient sentence. With Maxwell I think the defence are going the mistrial/retrial route first.

The problem with this is Virginia's case against Andrew is a civil case not criminal. Defendant's who are offered a plea agreement do this prior to the case being presented in court. The deal Epstein got was arranged by Dershowitz and one we're never likely to see again.

 

[Tresir]

I think too her main reasons would be quite possibly to minimize the sentence although I'm not sure this woman would admit guilt for that purpose or not.

Sometimes too there may be with some people this attitude well "if I'm going down, I might as well take everyone else with me"... Appeals notwithstanding, she has fought the fight proclaiming innocence and it didn't work so who knows...

Most people have some grudging respect for the truth and if she actually told all, she might be looked on a bit more favorably by some even if they abhor the actions of her and Epstein. However, the flip side is she would be very disliked by more "important" types she names and their circles possibly so in the end, I'm not sure she'd want that.

The reason for her sentencing not being till June is because of the existing motions regarding the retrial etc not ending until March. Then the actual retrial may happen so there has to be time for all that. As for her professing her innocence- that is a defendants right, as is attempting to minimize any sentence. I personally don't believe she should get more than Epstein received as he was the main perpetrator.

 

[kdg411]

The reason for her sentencing not being till June is because of the existing motions regarding the retrial etc not ending until March. Then the actual retrial may happen so there has to be time for all that. As for her professing her innocence- that is a defendants right, as is attempting to minimize any sentence. I personally don't believe she should get more than Epstein received as he was the main perpetrator.

He killed himself in jail before he could be tried in court though.

 

[Tresir]

The problem with this is Virginia's case against Andrew is a civil case not criminal. Defendant's who are offered a plea agreement do this prior to the case being presented in court. The deal Epstein got was arranged by Dershowitz and one we're never likely to see again.

I am also talking about Maxwell's upcoming motion for retrial and possible sentencing deal for her existing conviction, when/if that happens in June. If she gets the retrial, I guess the sentencing will be cancelled. The prosecution have already offered to drop the perjury charges if she does not go for the retrial, so they are in deal making mode. Perhaps they have eyes on further co-conspirators too.

 

[Tresir]

He killed himself in jail before he could be tried in court though.

He got a previous plea deal in Florida though and that was what I was referring to.

 

[Tresir]

Article dated today:

Beatrice will not be forced to give evidence in Andrew case

PRINCESS BEATRICE has been spared from being dragged into Prince Andrew's sexual abuse case.

www.express.co.uk

Not surprised. I think she was 11 years old at the time.

 

[GrandmaBear]

That's the whole thing about turning State's/Queen's evidence, any of one's own wrongdoings are usually expunged. They could give her a minimum sentence which I think was 1 year on most of the counts and 5 on the main one ie 9 years with time off could be 3 years. She has done nearly two years anyway. Think about the deal Epstein got where he did work in the community for the last year. He clearly gave them info for such a lenient sentence. With Maxwell I think the defence are going the mistrial/retrial route first.

Well, we'd be getting back to that total mess of what is state, federal, civil, criminal, etc. Maxwell's case is federal and she was convicted. They would have the choice and say I would think. Is turning "state's" evidence relevant to a "federal" case in the US? I doubt it would be that simple of a thing but I truly don't know. It may very well be there is a similar federal turning of evidence but unsure how that works. Those kinds of deals are generally made prior to trial, Epstein was never tried.

She could of course, or her attorneys, argue to the federal judge that she is righting wrongs by trying to help by naming people and beg for a more lenient sentence pointing out she is coming clean maybe but as to something being "expunged" I doubt it. The time for that kind of deal would have been pretrial imo. And again Epstein's deal was a "state" deal, Florida I believe. And done prior.

 

[Tresir]

The problem with this is Virginia's case against Andrew is a civil case not criminal. Defendant's who are offered a plea agreement do this prior to the case being presented in court. The deal Epstein got was arranged by Dershowitz and one we're never likely to see again.

I am wondering if they are eyeing up Andrew for a criminal prosecution if it is looking like he did commit sexual abuse/rape in NY in 2001 ? Could that be a possibility?

 

[kdg411]

I am also talking about Maxwell's upcoming motion for retrial and possible sentencing deal for her existing conviction, when/if that happens in June. If she gets the retrial, I guess the sentencing will be cancelled. The prosecution have already offered to drop the perjury charges if she does not go for the retrial, so they are in deal making mode. Perhaps they have eyes on further co-conspirators too.

Ok. I understand now.

Per document 574 the Government isn't proposing a plea. They are willing to forgo the other charges so the witnesses do not have to testify again.

*That's how I understood it.

Here's the statement from document 574;

In the event the defendant’s post-trial motions are denied, the Government is prepared to dismiss the severed perjury counts at the time of sentencing, in light of the victims’ significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I would imagine he had a military, police or intelligence career beforehand. Often they are police firearms officers. I noticed one of his later jobs was a Commander and instructor at Sandhurst which is a top UK military establishment.

This is Guiffre lawyers asking about this. What she is claiming happened in 2001 isn't it? When she was still under 18. Her eighteenth birthday was August 2001, I believe and she married in 2002.

The dates with Guiffre is why I want to know how old he was and where he was working in those years. I see he seems to have had an impressive and illustrious career but I'd still like to know what he was doing prior to working for Andrew/the Royal family because his job history/career starts there on Linked In. I seriously doubt they hired some young unknown, inexperienced person to work as aide to the prince and to be around the royals. I'm just saying his two years of duty on Linked In don't mean he did not know Andrew, or the family, was not around him, etc. either before or after those two years. Was he a friend? A school chum? Know the royal family? Did they just hire some unknown lad straight out of high school? I somewhat doubt it. An average person wouldn't do that even.

I think hanging onto the Linked In dates meaning what he may have known or not known doesn't necessarily mean much as we don't know what he was doing then or where he was employed. Let's also not forget we do our own Linked In profiles, they aren't "certified" by anyone or anything. Maybe he was aide to another royal prior to Andrew or in another position with the royals.

The point is how does he know the family and Andrew, how did he get hired and your point, what was he doing when Guiffre was that age or this was happening? The Linked In profile doesn't show that. So my guess is Guiffre's lawyers have their reasons and Guiffre too and know more than we do of why he was in the book and what he may know and where he was in those years.

 

[Tresir]

Well, we'd be getting back to that total mess of what is state, federal, civil, criminal, etc. Maxwell's case is federal and she was convicted. They would have the choice and say I would think. Is turning "state's" evidence relevant to a "federal" case in the US? I doubt it would be that simple of a thing but I truly don't know. It may very well be there is a similar federal turning of evidence but unsure how that works. Those kinds of deals are generally made prior to trial, Epstein was never tried.

She could of course, or her attorneys, argue to the federal judge that she is righting wrongs by trying to help by naming people and beg for a more lenient sentence pointing out she is coming clean maybe but as to something being "expunged" I doubt it. The time for that kind of deal would have been pretrial imo. And again Epstein's deal was a "state" deal, Florida I believe. And done prior.

By turning states evidence I think they mean federal not individual states but am not familiar with the whole US procedure. With Maxwell, if she gets the retrial then she stands a good chance of negotiating a plea deal as the victims may not want to testify all over again.

 

[Tresir]

Ok. I understand now.

Per document 574 the Government isn't proposing a plea. They are willing to forgo the other charges so the witnesses do not have to testify again.

*That's how I understood it.

Here's the statement from document 574;

In the event the defendant’s post-trial motions are denied, the Government is prepared to dismiss the severed perjury counts at the time of sentencing, in light of the victims’ significant interests in bringing closure to this matter and avoiding the trauma of testifying again.

"In the event the post trial motions are denied" - I think that means if the retrial is denied doesn't it? If the retrial is allowed, then a plea deal would be possible and very likely IMO for the same reason to prevent the victims trauma of testifying again. She appears to be in a win win situation ATM. I know that may not look like it from where she is sitting but she has some options/chances possible.

 

[GrandmaBear]

The reason for her sentencing not being till June is because of the existing motions regarding the retrial etc not ending until March. Then the actual retrial may happen so there has to be time for all that. As for her professing her innocence- that is a defendants right, as is attempting to minimize any sentence. I personally don't believe she should get more than Epstein received as he was the main perpetrator.

Whatever did or didn't happen to Epstein has nothing to do with her charges nor sentencing and that won't apply nor should it. It isn't even apples to oranges, it is comparing an ocean to an almond. They just do not connect or relate. Her actions are her actions, not HIS. State. Federal. Etc.

Not arguing, it's just that I guess it hasn't been explained well enough in this thread if you still think that. I'm not sure how the UK system is but here what happened with Epstein is due to it was a Florida case. Our states have some separate powers and autonomies and while the federal government can step in if needed in some areas of law, life and politics, by and large states run many of their own systems without interference. Florida gave Epstein this deal, not the US. Maxwell was tried by the US..

A good example is your info that over there you have "turning Queen's evidence". Here it is not called turning "President's or Country's evidence" is it? It is state. It may seem like semantics but our systems are very different I"m guessing and maybe that's part of the confusion.

 

[kdg411]

"In the event the post trial motions are denied" - I think that means if the retrial is denied doesn't it? If the retrial is allowed, then a plea deal would be possible and very likely IMO for the same reason to prevent the victims trauma of testifying again. She appears to be in a win win situation ATM. I know that may not look like it from where she is sitting but she has some options/chances possible.

Yes. If the post trial motions are denied then there will not be a retrial. If that happens then the perjury charges could be dismissed. If she is granted a new trial then a plea could be discussed but it would still have to be approved by Judge Nathan. Maxwell does still have a chance because the Judge hasn't issued any further rulings.

 

[Tresir]

The dates with Guiffre is why I want to know how old he was and where he was working in those years. I see he seems to have had an impressive and illustrious career but I'd still like to know what he was doing prior to working for Andrew/the Royal family because his job history/career starts there on Linked In. I seriously doubt they hired some young unknown, inexperienced person to work as aide to the prince and to be around the royals. I'm just saying his two years of duty on Linked In don't mean he did not know Andrew, or the family, was not around him, etc. either before or after those two years. Was he a friend? A school chum? Know the royal family? Did they just hire some unknown lad straight out of high school? I somewhat doubt it. An average person wouldn't do that even.

I think hanging onto the Linked In dates meaning what he may have known or not known doesn't necessarily mean much as we don't know what he was doing then or where he was employed. Let's also not forget we do our own Linked In profiles, they aren't "certified" by anyone or anything. Maybe he was aide to another royal prior to Andrew or in another position with the royals.

The point is how does he know the family and Andrew, how did he get hired and your point, what was he doing when Guiffre was that age or this was happening? The Linked In profile doesn't show that. So my guess is Guiffre's lawyers have their reasons and Guiffre too and know more than we do of why he was in the book and what he may know and where he was in those years.

I am thinking he was likely in intelligence or diplomatic protection squad and that is why it is not in his LinkedIn. That's my guess. You don't go straight from school at age 18 into the Royal Protection Squad or become an Equerry. A member of my family was an armed Special Branch officer and protected the Home Secretary in the 80's. It often does not go on a CV.